Application No: N/2003/1059 Location: Land/garages at Elizabeth Street Proposal: Demolition of 3 no. garages/stores and the erection of a single dwelling with integral garage Officer: Mrs Rita Bovey

Recommendations:

REFUSAL for the following reason:

The proposed development, by reason of its position, height and massing, would appear overbearing and unduly dominant when seen from the rear of the properties at nos. 72 to 78 Lower Thrift Street and would result in the loss of outlook and openness from those properties. It is considered that the development would have a seriously detrimental effect upon the residential amenities of the occupiers at nos. 72 to 78 Lower Thrift Street for these reasons contrary to Policies H6, H19 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan.

Site Description and History:

The application site is located on the east side of Elizabeth Street immediately adjoining the rear gardens of the properties along Lower Thrift Street. It contains a block of three lock-up garages.

The proposal relates to the demolition of the garages and erection of a two-storey dwelling house with an integral garage. The proposed dwelling, with a height of 4.7 metres to the eaves level and 6.3 metres to the ridge, will front directly onto Elizabeth Street. Apart from three velux rooflights, no other window openings have been proposed at the side and rear elevations of the proposed dwelling.

The applicant’s agent has submitted a letter to support the application proposal (as appended to the report).

Planning Policy:

Northampton Local Plan Policies H6, H19 and E20. PPG3 (Housing).

Consultations:

Environmental Health – no objections. Representations:

**Thrifts Streets Residents Association** – object to the proposal; do not object in principle to the idea of redevelopment of brownfield land in the area but should not include land that is or was previously the back gardens of Victorian housing; the overall nature and character of the proposed building is not compatible with and does not match the existing character of the wider area; the proposed dwelling is too close to houses and gardens of nos.70-80 Lower Thrift Street, the east facing windows in the upper storey will directly overlook these properties severely reducing their privacy and introducing an unreasonable level of intrusion; the new dwelling will significantly reduce the light and visual amenity of the houses on Lower Thrift Street; the dwelling is designed for single occupancy, as have a number of other units approved in the area in recent times, concerned that this trend will cause long term changes in the population structure and balance, with a decrease in the numbers of properties in family use. Also objected to the increase of housing density and traffic in the area.

**72 Lower Thrift Street** – object to the application; the proposed building will block off light to the house and garden; the proposed building, with only skylights in the roof, is unsightly; the two storey wall at the end of the gardens of 72 to 78 Lower Thrift Street would block these properties in like prison walls.

**74 Lower Thrift Street** – object to the application; the proposed building will enclose the top of the gardens of 72 to 78 Lower Thrift Street, together with the existing exterior walls of the R.A.O.B. Club at no.70 and the old bake house at no.80, the four gardens will be turned into a brick built compound. The outlook and the value of the property will be affected.

**78 Lower Thrift Street** – strongly object to the application; the new house would overlook gardens and invading on privacy; the building would create more shade in the garden and residents would have to look at a brick wall at the rear of the houses. Parking around the rear would be made more difficult, parents dropping off children for the school would have limited parking from the Elizabeth Street entrance meaning they would take up parking in Lower Thrift Street. Also objected to the noise and dirt resulting from the building works.

Appraisal:

The properties at nos. 72 to 78 Lower Thrift Street are currently bounded by the two relatively substantial brick built outriggers at nos. 70 and 80 on both sides. The rear elevation of the proposed dwelling, because of its height and design, would have an enclosing effect and create an overbearing and dominant effect upon these houses and gardens.

Notwithstanding the advice contained in PPG3 (Housing) regarding infill dwellings in existing urban areas, the proposal is considered unacceptable and would detract from the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupiers of those properties.